Public Sector Information :: Infringements
Infringement procedures
As the guardian of the EC Treaty, the Commission ensures that community law is correctly applied. Consequently, it may launch infringement procedures against Member States who fail to comply with community law.
Anyone may lodge a complaint with the Commission against a Member State about any national measure (law, regulation or administrative action) or administrative practice which he/she considers incompatible with Community law.
The 3 steps of an infringement procedure
1st step: Letter of formal
notice
If the Commission has decided to launch infringement procedures on its own
initiative or following a complaint, it sends a letter of formal notice to the
Member State. The Commission requests the Member State to submit its
observations on an identified problem regarding the application of community law
within a given time limit.
2nd step: Reasoned opinion
The reasoned opinion sets out the Commission’s position on the infringement
and determines the subject matter of any action, requesting the Member State to
comply within a specific time limit. It may take
place if no reply to the letter of formal notice has been received, or if the
observations presented by the Member State in the reply to the formal notice are not
considered satisfactory.
3rd step: Court of Justice
If no reply to the reasoned opinion is received from the Member State or if the
reply is unsatisfactory, the Commission may refer the case to the Court of
Justice.
Infringement proceedings related to the implementation of the Directive on the re-use of public sector information
Poland – 27 October 2011 - The Court of Justice of the EU in case C-362/10 confirmed that Poland failed to transpose the PSI Directive correctly. The Court agreed with the Commission in regards of all grievances. In particular, the Court stated that persons who would like to re-use PSI should know in which circumstances they can rely on respect of conditions of re-use established by the PSI Directive. According to the Court a national regulation on access to documents is not, by itself, susceptible of transposing the provisions of the Directive with the clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal security and enabling persons who would like to re-use public documents to know all their rights. The Court also stated that a fact that a certain activity is not exercised in a Member State does not dispense that Member State from transposing all the provision of a directive. Such obligation lies on all Members States in order to prevent any possible modifications and to guarantee that everyone in the EU, also in those Member States who don't exercise certain activities, know with clarity and precision and in all circumstances the full scope of their rights and obligations.
Estonia and Slovakia – 27 October 2011 - The Commission decided today to send two Reasoned Opinions – the second stage of the infringement procedure - to Estonia and Slovakia for incorrect transposition of the PSI Directive. Estonia and Slovakia have failed to correctly implement most provisions of the PSI Directive, including provisions on definitions, on procedural requirements as well as provisions on prohibition of discriminatory or monopolistic practices by public bodies. Both countries have now two months to inform the Commission of measures taken to ensure the compliance with the PSI Directive. Afterwards, the Commission may refer the cases to the European Court of Justice. Please see the press release.